The Gentleman "Ned" Photograph

Conceding defeat as a ‘Gentleman’
From: Matt Shore [matt@nedtheexhibition.com] 27 May 02
The 'Gentleman Ned' photograph has certainly kept us on our toes over the last couple of weeks! It seems that the debate over the authenticity of the photograph is now well and truly over. Forensic imaging has proved that the photo is unfortunately not Ned Kelly. I must admit that I truly believed it to be Ned. I believed that that is how Ned would have looked under those photographic conditions. As always, I put forward my views only as an enthusiast, NOT a historian.

For the record, Ian Jones is extremely pleased that at least we now know for sure. The idea of opposing camps debating the photo forever and a day would clearly have been very counter-productive. I would like to point out that whatever people may think of the 'authentication process', it was simply an honest mistake. The original photograph has not been seen until fairly recently. The best reproduction available was a very dubious 1930's newspaper reproduction. Keith McMenomy's subsequent reproduction of the newpaper image in the early edition of his excellent book was obviously not a very clear one. People should not doubt that the family (Tom Lloyd's descendants) who auctioned the photograph) also believed it to be Ned. They are understandably very shocked and upset that it isn't him. They are good, honest people. Of course, now the intriguing question for all of us is 'who is the mystery man in the photo?' He must be a relative or close friend.

BUT - we have been given a teriffic second prize. The technology that has been used to prove conclusively that the 'gentleman' portrait was not Ned has also been used to prove once and for all that the famous boxing photo IS 100% Ned. I for one have been fielding many questions over the photograph, from so-called 'experts'and I'm very pleased that on this point, Ian has at least been vindicated. Guess who found the photo in the early sixties and brought it to the people of Australia? Yes, Mr Jones.

I have had people chew my ear off claiming the photo to be Wild Wright, etc etc. It is absolutely Ned Kelly - everything matches, as in all the other authenticated photos of him. Hopefully those that accept the verdict on the 'Gentleman' photo now can also accept the verdict on the boxing image. It is easy to be seen as running to Mr Jones' defence on issues like this, but I would just like to add that many of us were very dissapointed in the way the buzzards savoured the oppurtunity to swoop on Ian over the photograph debacle, and relish some publicity for themselves when normally there would have been absolutely no other window of oppurtunity for them. In the process, they made themselves look like 'heroes'. If Ned were here, he'd give you all a well deserved kick in the arse for showing lack of respect and decency. (I'm sure he'd also have a good laugh at all the fuss the photo has caused). To those amateurs that most likely consult Ian's works on a daily basis, you should have known better. It will be very interesting to see what oppurtunities are savoured by weeties-packet 'historian's' over an honest mistake.

You probably all know this, but we received a phone call a couple of weeks ago, and the skull that was stolen from the Old Melbourne Gaol in 1978 is absolutely NOT Ned's. This result was achieved through very similiar technology used for the Gentleman' photo. Most of us never believed the skull to be Ned's, but it's very nice to know for sure. Hopefully, Mr Baxter will now fade into the obscurity that he so greatly deserves. He now has no hand to play, and he can't keep us dangling anymore. Yippeeeeeee! Brad, as always keep up the great work. You clearly deserve the awards. Although I owe you from losing the bet, I know that you never thought the boxing photo to be Ned. Can we call it evens?!! Yes without men like Ian Jones, Ned would be as popular as William Bligh. But remember Mr Shore, Matt Deller phoned you the day after the Exhibition Dinner to voice his concern on "Gentleman Ned" and you laughed at him! Just look how baggy this bloke's clothes are. If Ned was 6 feet tall then he must have borrowed his gear from Andre The Giant! But hey, what would Matt Deller know, he’s only Melbourne’s number 1 photographer! As for me I used the "Boxing Ned" photo as a point of reference for one of my essays when I was studying History at Monash...

re: The Kelly Photo
From: Mick Fitzsimons [mickfitzsimons@hotmail.com] 26 May 02
I would like to respond to Trevor Harbord’s comments re: the Gentleman Ned reproduction in Ian McMenomy’s 1984 book. The iamge is not a good one. The much clearer reproduction that we are seeing lately, clearly shows the difference in facial features. As for the latest rumours about the Boxing photo being Wild Wright, it is easy to see in the many photos of Wright, that his right eye and especially eyebrow appear to sit lower that the left. These photos also clearly show his nostrils, which would indicate that his nose was slightly upturned, or the tip of his nose was high in contrast to the nostrils. Although the hairline is similar to Wright’s, no other facial features are.

Ian Jones has made a remarkable contribution to the retelling of the Kelly Story as have many others, unfortunately we all make mistakes. I think Ian’s biggest mistake was putting his name to the Mick Jagger movie. Had I been the consultant, I definitely would’ve pulled the pin over what they did to the story, the legend, the man and our country. Even this latest attempt at the story is using overseas actors to play Dan, Joe and Steve and local actors to play those from abroad. Hello! It should be the other way around, especially if foreign money for the film dictates overseas actors. Maybe one day we will have the story made, financed and acted by Australians on a level to show the world. Incidentally, the ideal person to play Ned would be Robert Taylor (Aussie priest in Ballykissangel). He’s big, robust, looks like Ned, even having similar hair.

The descendants of Red Kelly and/or Ellen Quinn do not own rights to this story, nor do the descendant of those related to the other gang members. Remember, neither Ned nor the other gang members had any direct descendants and the whole story belongs to the people. It’s a story of our people for our people. If someone is making a dollar out of Ned, be it right or wrong, they are keeping the legend alive and it should not be forgotten. Ned left a legacy in the form of a curse that has plagued many attempts to make money or fame from his name, so author, movie maker, vendor and website host “beware”. (Even us letter writers should tread carefully). It does not belong to the government either, as the rights that a government had over the body of a hanged person, may have applied then, but are totally irrelevant today, as is the hanging of people. Well said. I’d just like to add ALL money raised through the sale of items sold over Ironoutlaw.com goes into the running of the site. Believe me, there are far better ways of making money...

The Kelly Photo
From: Trevor Harbord [trevor.h@optusnet.com.au] 25 May 02
I hate to flog a dead horse but where have all the wingers whove been claiming recently the Ned gentleman photo isnt Ned been since 1984. As anyone worth there salt would know this is how long the public have had access through Keith M's book to the photo. Several unsavoury Kelly story so called authorities know all they have to do is disagree with Ian Jones and they will get some publicity / these folk know who they are. I myself thought something about the character in the photo was different but simply thought a posed photo in a suit could show a different side to a person. I havent read the detailed report re the photo and will read this before I totally give up on it. Anyone would know there are those out there exploiting the Kelly story simply to make a buck (authors, journalists, memorabilia shop owners) these buggers know who they are you read about them and see them spouting and foaming if you speak to them. Its up to those who are interested in the Kelly saga for there own enjoyment to sort out the bullshit artists from the genuine people and not give these buggers publicity. In my opinion this is all that matters in the whole photo saga. THERE ARE ONLY 6 OR SO PHOTOS OF NED IN EXISTENCE AND NOW THERE MAY ONLY BE 5. THATS THE SHAME. Lets enjoy the history we have for the right reasons.

Ian Jones: Gentleman
From: Mark Perry [tbird4@iprimus.com.au] 22 May 02
The furor surrounding Gentleman Ned photo shows the Kelly saga is still very much in demand. Whether or not a mistake has been made, I think it is important to remember all the good things Ian Jones has done for the Kelly enthusiast. Unfortunately, it appears Tall Poppy syndrome is alive and well. Even before The Age article on Saturday, I was picking up a lot of negative vibes regarding Ian from some quarters that probably should have known better. Ian is a gentleman and will handle this situation as such but I'd hate to see the rest of his excellent work clouded. Over many years, he has fleshed out the Kelly story for us all in a historically accurate, vibrant manner. His good story telling skills as an ex-journalist should not detract from the fine work he has presented in the form of movies, TV, two incredible books and many presentations. He is certainly no 'amateur historian' as someone put it. His work with Brendan Pearse and Matt Shore on the current exhibition is to be applauded. It is thanks to these three individuals we have such a milestone event to be a part of. Let's all just move on and increase our knowledge of the story and have a good time! What exactly constitutes an historian? Is it a four year degree? Is it years of dedicated research? Is it someone with a passion to explore our rich and varied past? Historians are suppose to question history, yet we are seeing too many people opting to question the historian... By the way, you still owe me $100 Mark!

re: Not Ned Photo Afterall!
From: Mike Lawson [webmaster@kellyoutbreak.cjb.net] 20 May 02
I think I'll add my 20 cents into this debate, and would like to start in saying, Ian Jones, is the "Deli lama" of the Kelly world, he is our Authority, our "referent". Secondly, Why put some other persons (Brendan Pearse) down in such a horrible manner Sam Bennett did. Was there any rhyme nor reason for this behaviour? Because Brendan had an opinion? is that any reason to act in that way? And I believe Brendan is right, we are beginning to question Kelly photographs to harshly, some "Historians" spend months and months questioning anything that come into the Kelly world. I know and acknowledge this is important and Ned would argue also, but, don't you think it would be better to get out there and find much more interesting objects, bullets, relics etc.... instead of sitting on one photograph for months? Me myself, didn't think the picture was Ned, but, I was opened minded and I am still not 100% I believe these "forensic experts". Ian Jones, now, he is no "amateur historian" he is our Kelly maker, where would we be without Mr Jones? in what position would this leave us??? He has un-covered one hell of a lot off secrets stories, etc that have made us know more about Ned. As Brad said, we all make mistakes. Deli lama?

Not Ned Photo Afterall!
From: Sam Bennett [imsambennett@hotmail.com] 18 May 02
Ian Jones, Matt Shore and Brendan Pearse (Ned: The Exhibition), and a few others were apparently all WRONG! The photo (Respectable Ned) claimed to be Ned Kelly has been shown by forensic experts to be a photo not of Ned, but of another person entirely! This photo has been queried by a number of people and websites - and the queries have been met with irrational anger (such as the Brendan Pearse email). What is wrong with some people?

History is about gathering facts and data and determining whether of not they are verifiable. It is NOT about believing something simply because someone well known “said so”! Ian Jones could have 6000 years experience but that would not mean he is beyond being questioned! If he is wrong about something (as in this instance) then he is wrong: simple as that! This is a matter of history: it is not a religion, Ned is not a deity and Ian Jones is not the Pope!

Brendan Pearse says, “People are getting too serious and are questioning different photos etc, who gives a rats toss bag?” Well I do for one! So I am certain would Ned! That photo was not of him after all! If the organizer of Ned: The Exhibition does not give a “rats toss bag” if something is genuine or not, the Exhibition he runs looses credibility. The name written on the back of the photo was “Ned Kelley” of course Tom Lloyd would have known how to spell Kelly correctly and so could not have written it! Ian Jones has shown himself to be human by this. He is an amateur historian, just like the rest of us! Can we stop treating him like the Deli Lama now? (By the way, who gets your bet money from Matt Shore and Mark Perry?) PS. It's spelt Dalai Lama

Ned Kelly (who else?)
From: Brendan Pearse [brendan@nedtheexhibition.com] 23 Apr 02
Dear Brad , I would like to post an open letter on your magnificent website.There has been a lot of conjecture about various aspects of Ned Kelly I.E. photos, debates on whether Dan and Steve escaped etc. Can I put my two bob's worth in here and now. Enjoy the fact that we have so much material on Australia's best known icon, enjoy the fact that we have had the privilege of Ian Jones 61 years of research. People are getting too serious and are questioning different photos etc, who gives a rat's toss bag? Who the hell knows whether Tom Lloyd wrote on the back of the gentleman Ned photo, I certainly don't and I am pretty happy with the fact that the photo came from Tom Lloyd's family

Further to all those budding historians, when you have reseached Ned for 61 years, written a best seller on Ned's life (now in it's 9th printing) worked on a Ned Kelly movie and made a mini series, then start to question Ian Jones. There are too may people not willing to get off their arse and do something , but are willing to criticise others who have achieved something.

Finally to Gary Dean and Tom Baxter, either put up or go away. I am sick of hearing about DNA and missing suits of armour and diaries hidden away in Tasmania. Matt and myself have delivered a number of things and I promise there is still more to come. In conclusion, Ned is now public property, so lets pay a bit of respect to Ned's memory and the descendants of all the other players in the Kelly story, including the Police at Stringybark and also pay some respect to serious Kelly historians. These comments are entirely my own and are not pointed to Brad Webb or his web site.

re: Gentleman Ned
From: Mark Perry [tbird4@iprimus.com.au] 22 Apr 02
I'll back Mr. Shore on this one and chuck in $100.00! If it isn't Ned then a lot of reputable people will have egg on their faces especially those who have published books standing by the new info. (And web-sites!). Somehow, I don't think so though... Hope we get a chance to see the remains of Brays studio where photo was taken on upcoming Ned Tours. What are peoples thoughts on "new" Sherritt photo on Page 70 of the Exhibition Catalogue? Just as exciting I reckon... I'll take that bet Mark, just send the money to ironoutlaw.com!

Joe Byrne and Gentleman Ned
From: Matt Shore [matt@nedtheexhibition.com] 14 Apr 02
I think that a few people are missing the point of Ian's comments re: Joe Byrne. Joe and Aaron most certainly hold a special and fascinating place in the whole saga, and I can understand anyone's fascination with their story in particular. I personally find it incredibly interesting. Although Joe was Ned's right hand man, trusty offsider and all, he probably wasn't the same type of 'family orientated' person as Ned. I think the main reason for this is that while Margaret Byrne (Joe's Mum) was struggling to support her family, her eldest boy Joe was off galavanting around the district, spending his money freely with apparently little concern for his mother and siblings. And before I get a flood of defensive emails - this information came from Elly Byrne, Joe's sister who passed away in 1964. Indeed (according to Elly) the family nickname for Joe was 'The Demon'. No one is saying that he was a total bastard, just that he had some very unlikeable qualities and a destructive temper towards those closest to him. He was of course, the major player second only to Ned in the mechanics of the gang, and his story is equally as tragic.

For those of you who would like to delve into Joe and Aaron's story, beg, borrow or steal a copy of The Friendship That Destroyed Ned Kelly ( a re-release is rumoured!). It is a better read than A Short Life. A big thing to say, certainly - but it will blow you away! After you have read the book, you should go to the Woolshed Valley outside Beechworth and visit Joe and Aaron's old haunts - including the site of Aaron's murder. Brad, I am looking forward to the next round of debate re: Gentleman Ned - Only a digital image of the death mask superimposed over the photo will prove once and for all that it is our main man! - I'll bet ya fifty bucks it is, mate! (I think I'm becoming obsessed!) Congratulations to Ben Collins for the interview with Ian Jones. Stay tuned to this site (and ours) for more incredibly exciting news on Ned. Folks, the momentum is building and building - it's all happening!! I am convinced a certain someone is helping our team alomg their merry way... Careful Matt, you could end up with egg on your face...

Ian Jones Interview
From: Nicky Cowie [nickycowie@today.com.au] 11 Apr 02
Firstly let me just say - I totally agree with Lisa. Joe Byrne's importance cannot be underestimated. He had many qualities. The best of which was his steadfast loyalty - especially to Ned, but also to Dan and Steve. He proved himself to be utterly trustworthy! I too was concerned about Ian's portrayal of him. He referred to Joe's temper as evidence that he was not a decent person - but Ned's temper was shocking and more frequent. Joe was an opium addict, yet even with this encumbrance - he was still a rock for Ned in extremely difficult circumstances. I believe it is possible that Ned did bring out the best in Joe - but I suspect it would be equally as likely that the reverse is also true. Ian inferred that the Kyneton and Pentridge photos of Ned look like two different men. Initially this may be true. However when comparing them in more detail - I see the same facial structure and cheekbones, the same eyes and eyebrows, the same nose, mouth, chin, dark coloring, hairline and even the same 'intensity' expressed in the eyes. These features I find much harder to see in the 'Gentleman Ned' photo! (Note: I do not question that Ned was a Gentlemanly man). I must add though, that Ian was dead right when he said Hugh Jackman would make a perfect Ned Kelly! Are any film producers out there listening?

The Kelly, Lloyd, Hart Photo Auction
From: Leslie Lloyd O'Keefe [Lescor@cnl.com.au] 05 Apr 02
I have no Kelly blood but plenty of Lloyd, Hart and Quinn. Thomas Peter and Rachael Lloyd are my grandparents. I have kept silent over the years for simply one reason, it was the wish of family and I am a firm beleiver if family loyality. I grew up with my grandmother Rachael when she resided in Wangaratta. Some of the photos displayed in Christies auction catalogue were in possession of the Lloyd Hart family and they were entrusted to a mem ber of the family for safe keeping. It would appear that there has been breach of that trust by somebody. Some of the photos in the catalogue appear the be genuine, however I have not sighted the originals. My advise for what it is worth, that any person thinking of purchasing Lloyd, Hart photos insist on a written Certificate of Authentication before paying!